ParkingEye first appeal rejected - breastfeeding mother

ozblackcat

martmonk wrote: »

Also you haven't said where this was - supermarket, retail park etc. Previous experience here may be available for the location you have been 'caught out' at. In any case you should complain to the landowner.

It is a carpark that services a lot of shops, but not a retail park. I have checked and the landowner is Hermes, but I couldn't find any other reference to them as to who they are. I was feeding in the Costa which no doubt advertises this as their carpark, so thought about writing to the manager there?

martmonk

Here's a letter written some time ago by Coupon Mad which I've slightly ammended to suit your circumstances. You may want/need to change it slightly as well, and change the emphasis for the copy sent to Parking Eye perhaps and you might want to take out the bits on disabled spaces as it's not directly relevant to your situation.

I'm sure C-M will see this at some point and make suggestions if required.

DearSir/madam,
Be advised that this is the only notice prior to a Small Claim that will be sent.

A 'parking charge' (ref xxxxxx) was sent to the registered keeper of XXXX XXXon DATE. The registered keeper responded directly to Parking Eye on DATE (and enclose copy).

As advised to Parking Eye in the above referenced letter, the driver on the day was a breastfeeding mother as such is a person with protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 and is legally entitled to use when needed, a 'reasonable adjustment' such as, in this case, additional time to feed their baby.

Parking Eye have been informed and have chosen to ignore this fact in continuing to pursue the registered keeper for payment of this ‘Parking Charge Notice’. This is a clear breach of the Equality Act 2010.

Of course, ignorance of disability law is no excuse for the continued unlawful threatening letters being sent to the registered keeper.

This bullying of those with protected characteristics does not represent (INSERTRETAILER) in a good light at all - as a direct result of this, (INSERTRETAILER) have now lost the custom of our whole family who previously shopped at xxxxx store. Not only that, this is clearly harassment which is illegal.

The car park signs which pretend that all legally-protected persons have to display a 'Blue Badge' are actually discriminatory. A genuinely disabled person quite simply does NOT need any permit to make use of this adjustment.

I am sure that the Blue Badge scheme may seem 'convenient' for Parking Eye to pretend they can rely on, to make 'policing' of these bays nice and easy - but it isn't that simple. In fact it is an Equality Act breach for your signs to effectively suggest the bays are not a provision for ALL protected disabled people who have need of that adjustment.

As you ((INSERT RETAILER)and Parking Eye) are now fully aware that the driver is protected and entitled to additional time, as the registered keeper of this car I expect to hear no more about this matter.

Take notice that I will regard any further correspondence, save as may be required to litigate matters between us or to confirm that the matter is closed, from you, your agents or assigns as harassment within the terms of s.2(1) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. Harassment is also another Equality Act breach in its own right, and citing either/both Acts, I will also reserve the right to seek damages from you (INSERT RETAILER) and Parking Eye who are jointly and severally liable for these unlawful actions).

I now assume the matter is closed and sincerely hope that (INSERT RETAILER) takes action to stamp out this illegal practice by your agents.

Yours faithfully

bod1467

martmonk wrote: »

Here's a letter written some time ago by Coupon Mad which I've slightly ammended to suit your circumstances. You may want/need to change it slightly as well, and change the emphasis for the copy sent to Parking Eye perhaps and you might want to take out the bits on disabled spaces as it's not directly relevant to your situation.

I'm sure C-M will see this at some point and make suggestions if required.

DearSir/madam,
Be advised that this is the only notice prior to a Small Claim that will be sent.

A 'parking charge' (ref xxxxxx) was sent to the registered keeper of XXXX XXXon DATE. The registered keeper responded directly to Parking Eye on DATE (and enclose copy).

As advised to Parking Eye in the above referenced letter, the driver on the day was a breastfeeding mother as such is a person with protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 and is legally entitled to use when needed, a 'reasonable adjustment' such as, in this case, additional time to feed their baby.

Parking Eye have been informed and have chosen to ignore this fact in continuing to pursue the registered keeper for payment of this ‘Parking Charge Notice’. This is a clear breach of the Equality Act 2010.

Of course, ignorance of disability and equality law is no excuse for the continued unlawful threatening letters being sent to the registered keeper.

This bullying of those with protected characteristics does not represent (INSERTRETAILER) in a good light at all - as a direct result of this, (INSERTRETAILER) have now lost the custom of our whole family who previously shopped at xxxxx store. Not only that, this is clearly harassment which is illegal.

As you ((INSERT RETAILER)and Parking Eye) are now fully aware that the driver is protected and entitled to additional time, as the registered keeper of this car I expect to hear no more about this matter.

Take notice that I will regard any further correspondence, save as may be required to litigate matters between us or to confirm that the matter is closed, from you, your agents or assigns as harassment within the terms of s.2(1) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. Harassment is also another Equality Act breach in its own right, and citing either/both Acts, I will also reserve the right to seek damages from you (INSERT RETAILER) and Parking Eye who are jointly and severally liable for these unlawful actions.

I now assume the matter is closed and sincerely hope that (INSERT RETAILER) takes action to stamp out this illegal practice by your agents.

Yours faithfully

I have deleted the 2 paragraphs relating to blue badges. They are not relevant in this case. I have also inserted the words in red. The rest looks good to me.

martmonk

ozblackcat wrote: »

It is a carpark that services a lot of shops, but not a retail park. I have checked and the landowner is Hermes, but I couldn't find any other reference to them as to who they are. I was feeding in the Costa which no doubt advertises this as their carpark, so thought about writing to the manager there?

this Hermes? http://www.hermes.co.uk/realestate/en-gb/team.aspx

they look like investment managers so unlikely to actually own the land but may be the managing agent.
For general enquiries:
Hermes Fund Managers Limited
Lloyds Chambers
1 Portsoken Street
London E1 8HZ
Business development:
+44 (0) 20 7680 2121

Switchboard:
+44 (0) 20 7702 0888

ozblackcat

Thank you all so much for your help. I've sent a letter off this evening so will see what they say

Coupon-mad

They did however have one sentence that quoted the Equality act stating (along the lines of) subsection blah states that if a didnt know b was a person with a protected characteristic they a cant be held liable for anything.

Am i right in thinking this is b****cks? I have actually now read the Equality Act and cannot find this part referenced, but surely once a knows that B is a person with a protected characteristic they have to abide by the Equality Act?

Yep that was balderdash - as you say, breastfeeding doesn't even fall under the 'disability' section of the Equality Act. What they have subjected you to is indirect sex discrimination:

http://www.maternityaction.org.uk/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/breastfeedingpublicplace.pdf

''If you cannot resolve the matter you can bring an action in a county court in England or Wales or a sheriffs court in Scotland.... You must start the case within 6 months of the date of the act you are complaining about. Compensation can include an amount for injury to feelings.''

The only thing I would have changed about the old letter I wrote above (but I wouldn't worry about it) is the phrase 'reasonable adjustments' actually only relates to disability. I only twigged that fact after I had written that letter for someone - but it did the trick anyway and the retailer cancelled it in days! But then again ParkingEye argued disability law at you (wrongly) and the letter you've sent merely uses a phrase that doesn't quite apply but give the gist of sex discrimination law anyway.

Finally, if they continue to argue that it is only discrimination of they 'knew or should have known' about your protected characteristics, the answer then is that they DO KNOW NOW. And so, now that they 'knew or should have known' about the issue, all letters from that point, persisting with this harassment, are IMHO unlawful.

They should have cancelled it as soon as they read your evidence/challenge. Hope you sent a copy of the letter to the CEO of the retailer, which was the intention.

Lazos

Looking forward to an update here.

ozblackcat

Hello,

So I got a rejection from Parking Eye in the post yesterday. They claim that it was rejected as I exceeded the maximum stay allowed, which seems like more of a template letter than the first one I received!

I now have a POPLA code and 28 days from the date of rejection (the letter is dated the 6th so either very slow postal service or very slow leaving ParkingEye's offices...) so would probably appeal online.

I guess I'm just looking for a bit of encouragement to appeal this further as I would rather not part with £60 let alone £100 if POPLA reject it. I guess thats how these operators get their money: they make you think they are 100% above the law and you are at fault in all cases.

Finally, if I do appeal, the 4 reasons to appeal have no bearing on the reason I'm appealing, so I'm stumped at the first hurdle...

Thanks

Redx

no you are not stumped

you appeal like almost everyone else on the 3 main appeal points, then add anything else you feel relevant

the 3 main points are

1) The amount being claimed is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss to your company or the landowner
2) Your signage does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice
3) You are not the landowner and do not have the capacity to offer contracts or to bring a claim for trespass

you tick all 3 boxes except the STOLEN one

now look here and post #3 has links to popla appeals and templates etc https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816822

Coupon-mad

if I do appeal, the 4 reasons to appeal have no bearing on the reason I'm appealing, so I'm stumped at the first hurdle...

You do give up easily. Could have Googled it!

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/secret-reasons-you-can-use-in-your.html

Come on - this is EASY to win! 'How to win at POPLA' is a hyperlink in the 'NEWBIES please read this first!' sticky thread, and here is that hyperlink:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/62180281#Comment_62180281

Let's see your draft then - examples galore to copy from with the magic winning words.